TO BE PUBLISHED IN ADVANCES IN MACHINE LEARNING AND DATA MINING FOR ASTRONOMY Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 11/10/09 GALAXY ZOO: MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION AND CITIZEN SCIENCE L. FORTSON1 , K. MASTERS2 , R. NICHOL2 , K. BORNE3 , E. EDMONDSON2 , C. LINTOTT4,5 , J. RADDICK6 , K. SCHAWINSKI7 , J. WALLIN8 to be published in Advances in Machine Learning and Data Mining for Astronomy ABSTRACT We provide a brief overview of the Galaxy Zoo and Zooniverse projects, including a short discussion of the history of, and motivation for, these projects as well as reviewing the science these innovative internet-based citizen science projects have produced so far. We briefly describe the method of applying en-masse human pattern recognition capabilities to complex data in data-intensive research. We also provide a discussion of the lessons learned from developing and running these community–based projects including thoughts on future applications of this methodology. This review is intended to give the reader a quick and simple introduction to the Zooniverse. Subject headings: astronomical databases, methods: data analysis, galaxies: general, galaxies: spiral, galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, galaxies: statistics 1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF GALAXY MORPHOLOGY or “arms". Hubble ordered disk galaxies based on the tight- One of the fundamental facts of the Universe is that most ness of these spiral arms and the size of the central bulge. He large galaxies1 come in two basic shapes which astronomers had two distinct populations of disk galaxies, namely with call “Spirals" and “Ellipticals". The exact details of why this and without a central bar-like (or linear) structure. At the is the case, and how the two types of galaxies relate to each point where these different classifications met (for spirals with other, remains a major mystery for astronomers. It is cen- the largest bulges, and tightest wound arms), Hubble placed tral to our understanding of how the creation and evolution of “lenticular" galaxies which at the time were hypothetical disk galaxies proceeds with cosmic time and depends on their cos- galaxies with very large bulges and no spiral arms – they have mic location. Significant effort has been spent over the last since been found. few decades trying to address these questions. It is a common misconception that Hubble believed the Edwin Hubble was one of the first astronomers to attempt to “tuning fork" diagram was an evolutionary sequence, with el- systematically address the origin of the shape, or morphology, liptical galaxies on the left evolving along the sequence to of galaxies using his famous “Hubble Sequence" or “tuning form disk galaxies. In fact Hubble advised that “temporal fork" diagram (Hubble 1926) which is still in use today (see connotations are made at one’s peril" in an early defence of Figure1). Starting on the left, Hubble classified the elliptical the classification sequence (Hubble 1927), going on to say galaxies using the observed ellipticity of the galaxy projected that he set up the classification “without prejudice to theo- on the sky, giving them a numerical value associated with how ries of [galaxy] evolution". This misconception about Hub- round they appeared on the sky. In three dimensions, ellipti- ble’s beliefs probably arose due to his suggestion of the use of cals can be triaxial objects, taking a range of morphologies “early" and “late" types to describe the progression towards from purely spherical systems through to flattened rugby ball the right along the sequence (although he discussed that this shaped galaxies. nomenclature was simply for convenience and borrowed ter- On the right side of the tuning–fork, Hubble placed spiral minology commonly used for stellar classification, (Hubble or disk galaxies. These galaxies have a central “bulge" of 1926)). Astronomers still call elliptical galaxies “early" types stars, that resemble elliptical galaxies in some ways, embed- and disk galaxies “late" type galaxies, although we now know ded in a thin disk of stars that show a range of spiral patterns that most “late" type galaxies have much younger stellar pop- ulations (ironically more “early type" stars) than most “early" type galaxies. 1 School of Physics and Astronomy, 116 Church St SE, University of Since Hubble, there have been several updates to his clas- Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA arXiv:1104.5513v1 [astro-ph.IM] 28 Apr 2011 2 Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation (ICG), Dennis Sciama Build- sification scheme (for a recent review see Buta 2011) but key ing, Burnaby Road, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK features have remained unchanged. What has changed dra- 3 School of Physics, Astronomy, & Computational Science, 4400 Uni- matically is the number of galaxies catalogued and requiring versity Drive, MS 6A2, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, classification. Before the advent of digital detectors in astron- USA omy, astronomers could just visually classify the galaxies they 4 Oxford Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK saw via their telescopes and/or on photographic plates. New 5 Astronomy Department, Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum, astronomers were trained to follow the classification rules 1300 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, USA and provided detailed morphologies for thousands of galaxies. 6 Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Several large catalogues of nearby galaxies with such classifi- Homewood Campus, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA cations exists (e.g. The Hubble Atlas of Galaxies (Sandage 7 Einstein Fellow/Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Yale University, PO Box 208121, New Haven, CT 06520, USA 1961), or the Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galax- 8 Computational Sciences Program, Department of Physics & Astron- ies (RC3), (de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991)), and many of these omy, Campus Box 71, 1301 East Main Street, Middle Tennessee State classifications are collected in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA 1 A galaxy is just a collection of stars; typically billions for a large galaxy. 2 L. Fortson, K. Masters, B. Nichol et al. from the fit to the two-dimensional surface brightness distri- !"#$%&''(#$ bution of the galaxy. Such data-orientated methods are very !&)*)+$,-./$ successful at capturing the complexity of galaxy shapes in two-dimensional images but remain hard to translate in terms G4$ G'$ G3$ of the more traditional, established morphological classes dis- 0((*1234(5$ 8)'4..#7$51*.4(5$ cussed above. In recent years, there has been significant interest in the =#)23&(4.$ development of model–based morphologies of galaxies that GM$ use established parametric models for the light distribution of galaxies to fit to the two–dimensional images of galaxies. 0K$ 0L$ 64..#7$51*.4(5$ Such methods include GIM2D (Simard et al. 2002) and Gal- G64$ G6'$ G63$ fit (Peng et al. 2002) which both attempt to fit galaxy images with a combination of a disk and bulge model. These can be used to construct an objective classification scheme such as the bulge-to-disk ratio of galaxies. Unfortunately, these model-fitting techniques are computationally intense and sub- 9.#7*:;$<4.#)$=>$?45:#.5$@A9B$C-.:5D-&:"E>$B4(4F*#5;$GHGG$+.*$3-(-&.$*D4+#5$45$&5#7$*)$B4(4FI$J-->$ ject to local minima as they search the high–dimensional pa- rameter space for the best fitting model (in some cases, it can FIG. 1.— The Hubble Tuning fork illustrated with the type of SDSS colour images used in Galaxy Zoo. Credit: Karen Masters and The Sloan Digital be a 12-parameter model being fit to the galaxy images). Sky Survey (SDSS) Collaboration, www.sdss.org. A quicker way to solve the classification problem is to use Database2. a proxy for the galaxy class. The most common such proxy The expert classifier approach quickly became inappropri- is the colour of a galaxy as most ellipticals are “red", with ate with the digital surveys because of the size of the galaxy their light dominated by older stars, while most spirals are samples available; for example, the Main Galaxy Sample of “blue", as they contain areas of active star formation which the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000; Strauss include luminous blue stars. However, relying on galaxy clas- et al. 2002) is over a million galaxies and simply cannot be sification via colours as a proxy misses an important piece of visually inspected by any one astronomer (or even all the as- the galaxy evolution story. The colour of a galaxy is driven tronomers in the world working together). It became clear that by the stellar (and gas and dust) content of the galaxy, while some automatic method for classifying galaxies was needed, the shape or morphology of a galaxy reflects its dynamical but programming a computer to recognise the complexities history which could be very different (and have a different of galaxy shapes (spiral arms, bars, disk plus bulges) is very timescale). Therefore, one of the central motivations for the challenging. original Galaxy Zoo project was to construct a large sample The first attempts at an automated classification scheme in- of early and late type galaxy classifications that were indepen- cluded the use of artificial neural networks, e.g. Lahav et al. dent of colour. (1995) began this work by comparing the classifications of 2. GENESIS OF GALAXY ZOO 830 galaxies from a set of six independent experts (R. Buta, H. Corwin, G. de Vaucouleurs, A. Dressler, J. Huchra and S. The Galaxy Zoo project was inspired by discussions of the van den Bergh). These experts were unanimous in their clas- limitations of a sample of early-type galaxies produced by Bernardi et al. (2003) from the initial Sloan Digital Sky Sur- sification in only 1% of objects, while an agreement of 80% 4 between the experts could only be achieved within a spread vey data (York et al.